Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 4, 2024 13 <br /> <br />market rate. He explained he did not receive any push back from neighbors or the City Council <br />on this concept. He did remember a conversation with Commissioner Bjorklund. He asked that <br />the Commission recommend approval of the project with a suggestion an affordable element be <br />included. <br /> <br />Chair Weber asked if Mr. Fink had experience with creating affordable rental units within his <br />previous developments. <br /> <br />Mr. Fink stated he did have experience noting these projects required TIF. <br /> <br />Chair Weber was of the opinion the only feasible option for the Planning Commission was to <br />recommend denial of this request with the intent to continue moving forward in order to work <br />towards a viable product for the City. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bjorklund stated there was a clear failure to comply with the City’s <br />comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bjorklund moved and Commissioner Collins seconded a motion to <br />recommend denial of Planning Case 24-018 for a Master Planned Unit Development, Final <br />Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Final Plat, and <br />Easement Vacation for a Multiple Family Dwelling at 1700 Highway 96, based on the <br />findings of fact and the submitted plans based on the fact the project fails to meet the goals <br />within Section 7 of the City’s comprehensive plan and it fails to recognize policies <br />implemented in Section 6. <br /> <br />Commissioner Erler stated the Commission could deny on the basis of not accepting the <br />flexibility requests on the grounds that they are not consistent with the comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner Collins reported this would be a denial based on the density and the Commission <br />was not supporting the proposed density because the City’s comprehensive plan and affordable <br />housing goals were not being met. <br /> <br />Interim City Administrator Jagoe indicated the PUD does not require affordable housing to be <br />a part of the project. She stated the Planning Commission would have to be specific on where the <br />PUD does not align with the goals of the comprehensive plan. She reiterated that the <br />comprehensive plan does not require affordable housing. <br /> <br />Consultant Planner Hofer explained the staff report included language regarding approval and <br />denial and could be reviewed by the Commission for motion language. He stated that there are <br />review criteria established in the zoning ordinance for CUPs and these standards were included <br />in the staff report. <br /> <br />Chair Weber stated the Commission would be making a recommendation for denial for the <br />additional density, FAR and building height based on the lack of conformance to the <br />comprehensive plan, based on orderly development of the neighborhood and City within the <br />general purpose and intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan for the City. He suggested <br />this be added as a friendly amendment to the language within the motion. <br /> <br />Chair Weber moved and Commissioner Collins seconded an amendment to the motion <br />language to include the following: denial for the additional density, FAR and building